Let's start the week with sharing an article penned by Larry Kenney of L Kenney Fly Rods that printed in the California Fly Fisher nearly a dozen years ago. This is a great article for those who fish glass but maybe even more important for those who are interested in glass but wonder why the same line weight offerings are sometimes significantly shorter.
After years of fly fishing with graphite fly rods, I remember being skeptical about the seven foot 3-weight and 5-weight fly rods that I was getting my "Glass Education" with. Larry puts all those concerns to rest with a lot of sense in the article below.
If you missed Larry's last article here on How to Choose a Fly Rod that was shared here several months ago, be sure to circle back and take it in point by point.
After years of fly fishing with graphite fly rods, I remember being skeptical about the seven foot 3-weight and 5-weight fly rods that I was getting my "Glass Education" with. Larry puts all those concerns to rest with a lot of sense in the article below.
If you missed Larry's last article here on How to Choose a Fly Rod that was shared here several months ago, be sure to circle back and take it in point by point.
I’m guessing that most of us who fish for trout have more 8 ½ foot and 9 foot rods in our closets than rods of every other length. That’s partly because most of us fish graphite, and graphite’s light weight makes long trout rods for trout weight lines possible. Long rods also seem to be a sensible choice
on the larger waters that are popular in California. And of course, they’re the accepted fashion.
In 1960's and early 1970's, before graphite became the dominant rod building material, an 8 ½ or 9 foot rod was pretty much reserved for salmon, steelhead or saltwater fishing. Long glass and bamboo rods – which I’ll arbitrarily classify as anything over 8 feet - for line weights as light as five were available, but they were anything but the norm and were generally bought by sophisticated anglers who wanted something special for special waters. They were also likely to be the product of an artisan rod shop like Winston or Powell and were priced higher than production rods. For the rest of us, while an 8 ½ foot 7 or 8-weight, or a 9 foot 9 or 10-weight might have been part of our kit, our trout rods, for line weights six and less, would likely have been shorter: 7 ½ or 8 feet, depending on where we fished.
Back in the 1960's, if you read magazine articles and fishing books and kept up with what the experts said, you might have gone looking for an even shorter rod. The folks writing about fly fishing back then would have been, for the most part, guys with roots in the fly fishing traditions of Catskill rivers in New York, or the Poconos in Pennsylvania: Art Flick or Lee Wulff for in the former, for example, or Charles Fox and Vince Marinaro in the latter. Their influence on American fly fishing, most of it positive, can’t be underestimated. Gentlemanly, civilized practitioners of the dry fly, who fished rivers that were smaller and more tranquil than many Western waters, these guys were for years the national arbiters of fly fishing tackle. They liked short rods and since their ideas were frequently published, that’s what we read about.
Lee Wulff, whom Esquire editor Arnold Gingrich described as “the fly rod’s most versatile exponent,” fished for salmon with a six foot rod, so what wasn’t to like about a short rod for mere trout? Except for some “midge” rods by Orvis or Michigan’s Paul Young or San Francisco’s R. L. Winston, most of these rods handled an HCH-graded silk line, equivalent to today’s 6 or sometimes 7 weight lines. By today’s standards, a 6 line is streamer tackle and anything but light. But “lightness” and “sporting” back then were
generally equated with length, so the guy who fished a little 7 footer with a 6-weight line felt he was challenging himself and the trout more seriously than someone fishing an 8 or 8 1/2 footer. In a way, I suppose, he was, since his heavier line landed less stealthily and his short rod gave the fish a bit of an advantage with the light tippets that back then were about half the strength of what we have today. But hey, it was the current fashion and the sporting way. I remember being really disappointed that the fine Powell bamboo rod that my father occasionally allowed me to fish was a 9 footer instead of the 7 and 7 ½ foot rods after which I lusted.
Of course that short rod movement was itself a reaction to the longer, heavier bamboo rods commonly fished until the early 1950's when fiberglass began to take over. Although some of those bamboo sticks were terrific, most of them were anything but lightweights. A Wright McGill Favorite, Heddon Black Beauty or South Bend 357, equivalents to good mid-priced rods available today, would have weighed 5
ounces or so even at 8 ½ feet. Except for hollow-built Winstons and Powells, whose following was largely on the West coast, top-shelf bamboo rods in 8 1/2 to 9 foot lengths - Leonards, Orvises, Youngs, Thomases and Paynes for example- would frequently go over five ounces, particularly in easy-to-transport three-piece versions.
Early fiberglass rods weren’t much lighter than bamboo, and by the 1960's the short rod movement had connected with that material too. Some short glass rods by specialty builders like New York’s Vince Cummings and California’s Russ Peak were exceptionally nice and Fenwick’s six foot 5-weight F60 now sells on eBay for multiples of its original price. But when graphite came on the scene in the mid 1970s, it did so with a vengeance, and changed the game again. Long rods for lightweight lines that weighed three ounces or less were now possible and it didn’t take long before the 9 foot graphite rod for 4 or 5-weight lines was what everyone fished, or at least saved up to buy. I recall an Outdoor Life magazine cover from 1975 or 1976 that showed Lefty Kreh breaking a bunch of short rods over his knee.
Graphite revolution notwithstanding, it’s still a fact that short rods made good sense to some pretty critical folks for quite a while. Learn something like Lee Wulff’s constant pressure, full arm casting stroke, and you could punch out line to 70 feet with a pretty short stick. You could also generate pretty high line speeds, and cast “under the wind.” Because the rod was relatively light it wasn’t that difficult to hold it high to keep drag at bay, and the short length made it easy to bring a fish to hand or net. If you’d fished heavier long rods before, the short stick was an exciting new opportunity. And it was fun – though it’s hard for me to think of anything associated with fly fishing for trout that isn’t fun.
So, just for the hell of it, let’s assume that having fun is what we’re seeking when we’re fishing, as opposed to some ideal technical solution to an angling challenge. If acknowledged experts back in the day were sold on short rods, is there something to them that we’re missing today? Back in the ‘80s, when I was heavily invested in long graphite rods, I recall one experienced Montana fly shop owner, a guy who sold a lot of 9 foot 4 weights, telling me that he preferred 7 ½ and 8 foot rods on spring creeks because he could strike fish faster than with a longer rod. Another friend who spends his summers on the Henry’s Fork likes to cast small nymphs to sighted fish without an indicator. A slow, quiet stalk and a 15 to 20 foot cast is his meat and drink. He fishes glass rods most of the time and an 8 foot rod is his choice. Still another friend told me that he recently fished a 7 foot fiberglass 3-weight on Hat Creek and, while he was limiting himself a bit by not being able to manipulate line as well as with a longer rod, the suppleness of fiberglass combined with the light line made up for it in grins when he hooked a fish. And then there’s the guy who fishes a 7 ½ foot graphite 4-weight from his pram on still waters. Since he can stand to cast, lack of length is less a factor than were he wading and he does as well as the guys with longer rods fishing from tubes and pontoons.
on the larger waters that are popular in California. And of course, they’re the accepted fashion.
In 1960's and early 1970's, before graphite became the dominant rod building material, an 8 ½ or 9 foot rod was pretty much reserved for salmon, steelhead or saltwater fishing. Long glass and bamboo rods – which I’ll arbitrarily classify as anything over 8 feet - for line weights as light as five were available, but they were anything but the norm and were generally bought by sophisticated anglers who wanted something special for special waters. They were also likely to be the product of an artisan rod shop like Winston or Powell and were priced higher than production rods. For the rest of us, while an 8 ½ foot 7 or 8-weight, or a 9 foot 9 or 10-weight might have been part of our kit, our trout rods, for line weights six and less, would likely have been shorter: 7 ½ or 8 feet, depending on where we fished.
Back in the 1960's, if you read magazine articles and fishing books and kept up with what the experts said, you might have gone looking for an even shorter rod. The folks writing about fly fishing back then would have been, for the most part, guys with roots in the fly fishing traditions of Catskill rivers in New York, or the Poconos in Pennsylvania: Art Flick or Lee Wulff for in the former, for example, or Charles Fox and Vince Marinaro in the latter. Their influence on American fly fishing, most of it positive, can’t be underestimated. Gentlemanly, civilized practitioners of the dry fly, who fished rivers that were smaller and more tranquil than many Western waters, these guys were for years the national arbiters of fly fishing tackle. They liked short rods and since their ideas were frequently published, that’s what we read about.
Lee Wulff, whom Esquire editor Arnold Gingrich described as “the fly rod’s most versatile exponent,” fished for salmon with a six foot rod, so what wasn’t to like about a short rod for mere trout? Except for some “midge” rods by Orvis or Michigan’s Paul Young or San Francisco’s R. L. Winston, most of these rods handled an HCH-graded silk line, equivalent to today’s 6 or sometimes 7 weight lines. By today’s standards, a 6 line is streamer tackle and anything but light. But “lightness” and “sporting” back then were
generally equated with length, so the guy who fished a little 7 footer with a 6-weight line felt he was challenging himself and the trout more seriously than someone fishing an 8 or 8 1/2 footer. In a way, I suppose, he was, since his heavier line landed less stealthily and his short rod gave the fish a bit of an advantage with the light tippets that back then were about half the strength of what we have today. But hey, it was the current fashion and the sporting way. I remember being really disappointed that the fine Powell bamboo rod that my father occasionally allowed me to fish was a 9 footer instead of the 7 and 7 ½ foot rods after which I lusted.
Of course that short rod movement was itself a reaction to the longer, heavier bamboo rods commonly fished until the early 1950's when fiberglass began to take over. Although some of those bamboo sticks were terrific, most of them were anything but lightweights. A Wright McGill Favorite, Heddon Black Beauty or South Bend 357, equivalents to good mid-priced rods available today, would have weighed 5
ounces or so even at 8 ½ feet. Except for hollow-built Winstons and Powells, whose following was largely on the West coast, top-shelf bamboo rods in 8 1/2 to 9 foot lengths - Leonards, Orvises, Youngs, Thomases and Paynes for example- would frequently go over five ounces, particularly in easy-to-transport three-piece versions.
Early fiberglass rods weren’t much lighter than bamboo, and by the 1960's the short rod movement had connected with that material too. Some short glass rods by specialty builders like New York’s Vince Cummings and California’s Russ Peak were exceptionally nice and Fenwick’s six foot 5-weight F60 now sells on eBay for multiples of its original price. But when graphite came on the scene in the mid 1970s, it did so with a vengeance, and changed the game again. Long rods for lightweight lines that weighed three ounces or less were now possible and it didn’t take long before the 9 foot graphite rod for 4 or 5-weight lines was what everyone fished, or at least saved up to buy. I recall an Outdoor Life magazine cover from 1975 or 1976 that showed Lefty Kreh breaking a bunch of short rods over his knee.
Graphite revolution notwithstanding, it’s still a fact that short rods made good sense to some pretty critical folks for quite a while. Learn something like Lee Wulff’s constant pressure, full arm casting stroke, and you could punch out line to 70 feet with a pretty short stick. You could also generate pretty high line speeds, and cast “under the wind.” Because the rod was relatively light it wasn’t that difficult to hold it high to keep drag at bay, and the short length made it easy to bring a fish to hand or net. If you’d fished heavier long rods before, the short stick was an exciting new opportunity. And it was fun – though it’s hard for me to think of anything associated with fly fishing for trout that isn’t fun.
So, just for the hell of it, let’s assume that having fun is what we’re seeking when we’re fishing, as opposed to some ideal technical solution to an angling challenge. If acknowledged experts back in the day were sold on short rods, is there something to them that we’re missing today? Back in the ‘80s, when I was heavily invested in long graphite rods, I recall one experienced Montana fly shop owner, a guy who sold a lot of 9 foot 4 weights, telling me that he preferred 7 ½ and 8 foot rods on spring creeks because he could strike fish faster than with a longer rod. Another friend who spends his summers on the Henry’s Fork likes to cast small nymphs to sighted fish without an indicator. A slow, quiet stalk and a 15 to 20 foot cast is his meat and drink. He fishes glass rods most of the time and an 8 foot rod is his choice. Still another friend told me that he recently fished a 7 foot fiberglass 3-weight on Hat Creek and, while he was limiting himself a bit by not being able to manipulate line as well as with a longer rod, the suppleness of fiberglass combined with the light line made up for it in grins when he hooked a fish. And then there’s the guy who fishes a 7 ½ foot graphite 4-weight from his pram on still waters. Since he can stand to cast, lack of length is less a factor than were he wading and he does as well as the guys with longer rods fishing from tubes and pontoons.
Even if a short rod limits you somewhat in the distance you can cast and in how much line you can control during a drift, for much trout fishing those aren’t significant drawbacks. Tiny streams are no problem, of course, since you’re rarely casting more than 25 feet. Harry Murray of Edinburg, Virginia, the dean of fly fishers in Shenandoah National Park, promotes and fishes little 4-weight seven foot graphite rods that he has a major rod company make for his shop. He convinced me of their usefulness – and fun - when I fished with him, and a rod of that configuration has been my choice for years for our little Sierra creeks.
What you can’t do as well with a short rod is fish heavy nymphs with added weight under larger indicators. The long lever of a longer rod makes those things possible. Still, it’s surprising how well a short rod fishes a small indicator – or a hopper above a nymph in the #14 to #18 range……imitations that represent a lot of what trout eat. You just cast more off the butt of the rod and lengthen your casting stroke a bit. I still get excited watching a 6” brookie take a Humpy that’s almost as big as his mouth. Or her mouth, for that matter. And it’s even better when you lift up your little rod and feel the weight of a big trout moving off.
You’ll find a lot of short rod choices under 7 1/2 feet from rod makers who working in glass and bamboo, but fewer from graphite manufacturers. Most graphite rod lineups tend to start at 7’6” and go up from there, but a few makers offer shorter rods.
Regardless of the material, most contemporary short rods for fresh water fishing are built to handle light fly lines: 3 and 4-weights for the most part, though occasionally for lines as light as 1-weight or as heavy as 5-weight. That’s a significant change from the 1960's where a 5-weight line was about as light as you could go without going to a specialty maker. The change owes in part to modern line making technology that makes light lines as easy to make as heavier ones, and in part to angler acceptance of the fact that light weight lines are serious fishing tools. Very few 3 or 4-weight lines were available even as late as the mid 1970's, and those were seen by many as toys for tiny flies and small fish. Today there are scores of good 3 and 4-weight lines available and we equate them more with delicacy of presentation than with fringe tackle for the effete.
When fishing alone from a small watercraft a short rod can be easier to handle than a longer one. That makes them handy for some other species of fish than trout: largemouth bass for instance, particularly from a canoe or kayak. There aren’t many 7 or 7 ½ foot fly rods built for line weights that will handle bass size flies and poppers, but an 8 foot rod for a 7 or 8-weight line rod will, and that’s another combination
that’s currently out of fashion. It will also have the muscle to snub a fish before it wraps you up in the brush. Those sticks are a long way from being trout rods of course, but the idea is still the same: short rods can be effective even if they don’t represent the current fashion, just as long rods proved effective when the fashion was to go short. In this case, it’s just another way of saying that going backwards can sometime open up interesting new territory.
Visit the L Kenney Fly Rods website and keep an eye out on the Larry's Writing page for new articles to be added in the future.
What you can’t do as well with a short rod is fish heavy nymphs with added weight under larger indicators. The long lever of a longer rod makes those things possible. Still, it’s surprising how well a short rod fishes a small indicator – or a hopper above a nymph in the #14 to #18 range……imitations that represent a lot of what trout eat. You just cast more off the butt of the rod and lengthen your casting stroke a bit. I still get excited watching a 6” brookie take a Humpy that’s almost as big as his mouth. Or her mouth, for that matter. And it’s even better when you lift up your little rod and feel the weight of a big trout moving off.
You’ll find a lot of short rod choices under 7 1/2 feet from rod makers who working in glass and bamboo, but fewer from graphite manufacturers. Most graphite rod lineups tend to start at 7’6” and go up from there, but a few makers offer shorter rods.
Regardless of the material, most contemporary short rods for fresh water fishing are built to handle light fly lines: 3 and 4-weights for the most part, though occasionally for lines as light as 1-weight or as heavy as 5-weight. That’s a significant change from the 1960's where a 5-weight line was about as light as you could go without going to a specialty maker. The change owes in part to modern line making technology that makes light lines as easy to make as heavier ones, and in part to angler acceptance of the fact that light weight lines are serious fishing tools. Very few 3 or 4-weight lines were available even as late as the mid 1970's, and those were seen by many as toys for tiny flies and small fish. Today there are scores of good 3 and 4-weight lines available and we equate them more with delicacy of presentation than with fringe tackle for the effete.
When fishing alone from a small watercraft a short rod can be easier to handle than a longer one. That makes them handy for some other species of fish than trout: largemouth bass for instance, particularly from a canoe or kayak. There aren’t many 7 or 7 ½ foot fly rods built for line weights that will handle bass size flies and poppers, but an 8 foot rod for a 7 or 8-weight line rod will, and that’s another combination
that’s currently out of fashion. It will also have the muscle to snub a fish before it wraps you up in the brush. Those sticks are a long way from being trout rods of course, but the idea is still the same: short rods can be effective even if they don’t represent the current fashion, just as long rods proved effective when the fashion was to go short. In this case, it’s just another way of saying that going backwards can sometime open up interesting new territory.
Visit the L Kenney Fly Rods website and keep an eye out on the Larry's Writing page for new articles to be added in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment